Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:06, 2 March 2023

This page in a nutshell: This was a request for comment on self electing groups on Wikipedia. Consensus was against such groups being formed. MickMacNee said that self electing groups would be against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and Dekimasu quoted Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles in which Jimbo Wales said "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites...". There was negligible support for self electing groups, though Juliancolton felt there wasn't a big problem.

A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.

What's the question?

Are self-electing groups on Wikipedia appropriate? Are they against policy? Which policy? What should be the role of such groups in Wikipedia? What are the benefits of such groups to Wikipedia? What are the downsides to such groups on Wikipedia? Can self elected groups help us in our primary goals better than any of our existing processes?

Desired outcome

A consensus view on the issue of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.

Background

There is currently a proposal in Peter Damian (talk · contribs)'s user space, to establish an Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors). Details are fluid at present, but the basic idea is as follows:

There shall be a defined group of Wikipedians within the project (the membership)
The members of the group shall be elected by its existing members
The members will be required to sign up to a set of common goals/objectives/principles

Related discussions

Feel free to add any relevant discussions you may be aware of, signing your addition

Statements

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

NOTE: For transparency, users who have already accepted a nomination to the The Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) should declare this in their statement.

Statement by MickMacNee

The community already has elections for some groups, such as administrators, arbitrators and bot approvers, but these elections are open to all registered Wikpedians (subject to certain restrictions designed to simply combat vote fraud). As far as I am aware, the community currently has no active self-electing groups of the nature of that proposed for the AEE.

The community already has a notion of defined membership lists, usually as a method of registering a common interest in a Wikiproject. As far as I am aware, none of these bodies have the power or remit to prevent good faith Wikipedians from becoming members, and member conduct and group activity within those projects falls entirely within the usual policies.

Any group of editors on Wikipedia that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Wikipedia community is not.

Any system that promotes the idea of vested contributors is fundementally wrong. Accepting the need to assume good faith about any new proposal for Wikipedia, a self-electing self-serving membership body is fundementally divisive by nature, and as such could represent a greater, and possibly unmanageable, threat to etiquette than the actions of individuals alone, and could be conducive to the fostering of an unwelcoming, or downright hostile, attitude in members and non-members alike.

The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented.

MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment from Pericles moved to the talk page per instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'(Partial) endorse : I support the view that self-electing groups should be not encouraged. If anything, systems such as RFA have become too de facto self-electing already. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 15:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasuよ! 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding Boy (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brothejr (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith</s%pan>τ 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⟳ausa کui ^× 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that a proposal so obviously contrary to our core principles was seriously considered is slightly discouraging. Dlabtot (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that leads to an us-versus-them attitude is undesirable. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--M^ask? 07:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fundamental difference about this proposal is that it would create a group which editors cannot join at will, or (like page moving) after having met objective qualifications. I support what Peter Damian would have liked to do with his group; but a self-selecting oligarchy is likely to spend most of its time discussing its own elections, and is unlikely to ever have enough active members to have a real impact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should be careful not to create elitism on the project, and I think that closed groups of "established editors" will go a long way to creating this if it becomes widespread. Also, since the group claims they can provide advocacy for members in various circumstances, it has the danger of becoming like a Wiki Political Party. "Elect a member of the Established Editors to ArbCom" etc... Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edward321 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the main, yes. Skomorokh 14:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I dislike the idea of exclusive groups - the more open and inclusive we can be the better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
vvv (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SBC-YPR (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+sj + 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Groups with shared goals can be helpful; but membership in them should be open to all who are interested.[reply]
Endorse as Wikiprojects are the way to go, not fraternities. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

As far as I know, this isn't a big problem at all. That said, I agree with PericlesofAthens. Further research/discussion should take place before blanket-banning such groups. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorse the view that blanket-banning is not the way forward here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While in principle I'm not keen on self-electing groups, I think trying to legislate against them would be a mistake. It would be difficult to phrase rules that had no unintended consequences, such as making it harder to form new Wikiprojects. And legislating would drive would-be members of self-electing groups underground on to email, IRC etc. --Philcha (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I think concern about such groups arises because the current group in question appears, in part, to be a forum for validation of inappropriate actions by some editors who, though they made notable contributions, were consistently rude and were (correctly) blocked for violating WP:Civil. A fair number of those nominated appear to be "wronged" editors (or their supporters) who feel admins used blocks based on WP:Civil and other guidelines unfairly. While in some cases they may have a point, a special interest group formed in part to support those involved in serious violations of WP:Civil is not appropriate. However, that does not mean all self-selecting groups should be banned. There may be some circumstance in the future when such a group could be useful/appropriate. All such groups should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not immediately squashed under a blanket ban. Otebig (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Quoting an important bit from what Jimbo wrote: “there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.” It seems clear to me what he was after: to get away from what Wikipedia was first heading towards, where you had to have your posts vetted by a high-brow committee before one’s posts could see the light of day. Jimbo wants it so anyone can edit and that’s what we’ve got; Wikipedia is completely open to newcomers. What Peter is contemplating is an association of like-minded editors which has no special entitlements and privileges, nor any ability whatsoever to limit other editors’ accessibility to any portion of Wikipedia. They simply want to form a marketplace for the exchange of ideas and do so with those they prefer to associate with. But I can see why this would be objectionable to others. Those who would be excluded make arguments, that if you extend it to the real world, amounts to “there should be no clubs or associations where members choose their membership. I should be able to crash any club like the Masons, or the Elk if I please, and they shouldn't be able to limit who they like to association with.” I reject this attitude and find other editors’ efforts to oppose it using words like “cabals” and “dangerous precedent” to be distasteful and disgusting. Clubs like the Masons and the Elks aren’t about limiting someone else’s rights anywhere in the world on anything, they just want to socialize with like-minded individuals who share a common world-view; people they can relate to. It is understandable that some WWII vet who lived through the depression is going to find little in common with some spiky-haired punk with the loud radio on the bus. I can see that what Peter is doing is likely a lost cause because there are too many editors who, feeling excluded, would gang together and engage in what is epidemic on Wikipedia: mob rule and lowest-common-denominator mentality. Accordingly, I am pulling a “full wimp-out” and am withdrawing my acceptance of the nomination. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, or WP will become even more like a police state. However, I think several aspects of the wording of the launch-page are unwise (piping to "union"; up-front aim to support editors in certain forums). As pointed out by several users here, self-electing groups come in a number of forms—some less and some more formal in their membership; saying yes or no to the concept will lead nowhere good. Treat each circumstance on its merits, and give it a chance to evolve into a positive part of the project. Nurture and encourage away from unfortunate directions, rather than drawing impossible distinctions and outlawing by category. Tony (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I am as uncertain about this group as anyone, despite having accepted a nomination to it, but I am very certain that I find these repeated attempts to suppress it to be completely unacceptable. An MfD failed a few days ago, now this RfC. What will the baying mob's next move be if this doesn't give them the "right" result? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Certain closed groups could be a problem. Insisting that all of them would have to be is fearmongering at its worst, especially when the group in question won't gain any special powers above any other editors. DreamGuy (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal indeed. And if anything becomes a big deal ... when was the last time a formal group became a real threat? NVO (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Attempting to ban a group that has not yet formed because of what it might become? Perhaps this indicates how far Wikipedia has gone towards becoming an ideological organization, rather than a project to publish an encyclopedia. --Klein zach 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--User:TallNapoleon
Enforse This feels premature. When we have a problem with self electing groups, then we do an RFC. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Blanket banning is hasty in this case. I could see it being an issue if a group formed a clique, if their members or the group's "decisions" or "point of view" got special traetment on Wikipedia, or it became like a political party, where the members would mindlessly weigh in on any discussion in support of the "group point of view", e.g. all members join in an AfD "delete this article", because the group tells them to (distributed sockpuppetry). But any specific group, its intentions, and its effect should be examined before making a determination like that. --Mysidia (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm very skeptical that Peter's group as he originally proposed it would have worked (my full thoughts here) but this lynch-mob mentality is not only deeply unappealing, but could have a lot of unwanted consequences. – iride scent 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. need to avoid dogma and polarisation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse...Modernist (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A ban would be unnecessary and too aggressive. As Juliancolton said, this is not a big deal and more research should be done, a ban or restriction would be overreacting. Furthermore, Wikipedians should have their freedom to establish groups if they wanted to, as long as the group is constructive to Wikipedia and the community. Banning the right to establish associations is like suppressing public gathering in an authoritarian government. And I completely agree to Philcha's endorsement opinions, banning user groups would largely interfere the collaboration between Wikipedians as Wikiprojects will be considered user groups and possibly banned. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

I'd be careful with this as it's broadly construed. Wikiprojects could be considered "self electing groups". Many of them go around inviting people to join a project. As for the particular "group" that brought this about, I'm against that one, just like Esperanza. If there ever was a real "cabal" on Wikipedia, User:Peter Damian/Established Editors is it. Last I saw it, it had some requirement that essentially said "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!" (per this diff, very first paragraph and especially this diff, very last sentence]). That's not acceptable. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith τ 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattinbgn\^talk 23:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) While I'm typically not impressed by displays of strength (strength in numbers, in this case), I respect the fact that a mob mentality can be strong influence in any discussion, and rarely is this a good thing.[reply]
Skomorokh 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Representation at arbitration"- what is this, a trade union? J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A question really: are there any wikiprojects that have closed membership? This would be my principal objection. I have no problem with open-membership voluntaristic groups dedicated to specific projects. I just didn't think any were exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dekimasu

At the risk of falling into Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Jimbo wrote a Statement of principles in 2001. It is prominently linked from Wikipedia:Five pillars. This statement of principles posits, in part, that

Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. [A]ny measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.... [R]ather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time.

This principle is violated by the creation of any self-electing group that limits its membership based on length of stay, number or type of contribution, editing style, or having "established an identity" on Wikipedia. Creating any such group without a "narrowly tailored objective" is a further violation of the principle. Any group that intends to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues" or engage in block voting is headed towards improper WP:TEAMWORK. Thus, the association under construction would violate long-established behavioral standards. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

As I said on either the MFD or the talk page before the discussion was removed, even a small group could effectively "win" every dispute it involved itself in just by overwhelming it. Mr.Z-man 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You nailed it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-said. Groups that self-limit their membership are a dangerous precedent. Shereth 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had recently joined the group believing it would be a means to encourage novice editors to work hard and sooner or later be privileged with an invitation to a meaningless but prestigious club. Now I see how this sort of "club" could end up causing serious problems. I'll be content with WikiProject China for now (which will never interfere with editor disputes, ArbCom, blocks, bans, etc. on my behalf). I would be willing to rejoin the group if it made some serious changes to its purpose, however. That is, if it became all-inclusive and instead of just allowing in senior editors, have senior editors tutor newbie members on how to write sound, researched, and well organized articles. That way, everyone can join, and it turns into more of a tutor service with prestigious members than a cabal.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Not even a close call.[reply]
Exploding Boy (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brothejr (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain panda 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith τ 21:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, bad idea. ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe 's talk 11:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No cabals. Period.--Aervanath (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RT | Talk 09:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--KrebMarkt 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tempshill (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malinaccier (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joke cabals and other informal friendship cliques that form are one thing; but formalized groups which organize in this manner smells kinda funny. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This accurately represents my feelings on the subject. ClickRick (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR 23:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse strongly. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Majorly

Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. Gangs and other such nonsense are for kids and teenagers, not sensible people writing an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Vickers

Speaking as both an editor and a thuggish security guard, I don't like the idea of closed groups either. Wikiprojects are open to any interested editor, and the technical groups such as rollbackers and administrators were created through a process of community consensus, with entry requirements defined by the community. I'd recommend waiting until the 20-odd members of this "association" decide what exactly they are intending to do, and then open an RfC on that specific formulation, to see if this is acceptable to the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

endorse Attempts at a blanket ban are likely to have unforeseen consequences, mostly undesirable. Peter Damian has blanked the user page on which he proposed the group. If the proopsal doe snot resurface within a month, we should close this RfC. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool3

Remember Esperanza? For those unfamiliar with it, take a look at its page as it exists now. Esperanza was conceived with the loftiest goals and best intentions, but it just doesn't work out, and now it's gone. To quote from the essay on its page: "existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times." We don't need clubs or cabals; it's not consistent with the ways things are done. Cool3 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this statement

Stifle (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. maybe something good can come out of Peter Damian's project, even if it gets closed, like it happened with Esperanza. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

The agenda of the proposed group, the list of "Membership commitments", is still in flux. Why are people expecting the worst from the group when it's not fully defined yet? I can imagine beneficial results from this association, including the development in each of its members a wider purview regarding previously unfamiliar Wikipedia content. I see the focus of the association as being centered on reliable content creation with appropriate weight. This is a fine goal! If it doesn't bog down in legalistic jockeying, the group could well become a project-spanning cross-pollinator, increasing the editing skill, wisdom and breadth of its members while adding materially to the value of the encyclopedia.

The Jimbo quote used earlier, "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" would only be violated if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." The group could conceivably offer help and guidance to new users. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The name of the group, the scope, membership, aspirations, aims and commitments of the group were all undecided. Many of the accepting nominees only agreed to participate conditionally, subject to the outcome. Now it seems there won't be an outcome at all. --Klein zach 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Seems obvious really, but obviously not to everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Damian

The system I proposed was not a 'cabal', which is a secret organisation. Those who have emailed me know that my replies were brief, and that the main proposals were on the page now deleted.
What I was proposing was a 'trust system' which is used in many human affairs. In banking this kind of system allows you to pay or receive money to someone you don't know or trust, via two banks that do know and trust one another. Another such system is the university, which self-selects its members. The university was an invention of the medieval period, a time when the human world emerged from the crudest superstition and 'point of view' to strive towards a world-view which was (approximately) neutral (we aren't there yet).
The question is whether Wikipedia can work without such a system.
I don't think it can. Someone asked above why a group couldn't be formed whose purpose was NPOV? This would never work. Fringe and POV-pushers do not work over a wide range of articles. They are obsessive about a single point of view. By contrast, those of us committed to neutrality work over the whole project, with the single aim of getting Wikipedia to reflect what is verifiable and neutral and which is reflected in other standard reference works. This gives a peculiar dynamic to the battle. The POV pusher will always outnumber the neutral editor in any one area. This is what makes the battle so frustrating and difficult. But neutralists as a whole will outnumber the POV pushers in any single area. This can be done only if (a) those who are neutrally commited combine and help one another (b) there is some sort of trust system so that experts in one area know it is OK to help an expert in another area. E.g. I would help someone committed to working on nuclear physics if I trusted their claims about what is in the scientific literature. But without being able to trust them, I will not be sure they are pushing some crank theory or not.
In summary, because of the dynamics of the POV vs NPOV (NPOV editors are committed to a wide range of theories many of which they do not understand at all, whereas POV editors have a deep but deranged understanding of a single area) it is essential that Wikipedia develop a trust system of some kind.
But this will never happen. The outright hostility I encountered suggests that 'Wikipedians' view themselves as members of a project with certain social objectives (complete levelling of expertise, antagonism to experts and so on) above the commitment to build a comprehensive and accurate reference work, accessible to all.
This is my reason for leaving Wikipedia. There are ways of correcting the distorted and inaccurate bias it is now presenting to the world, other than from working inside the 'community'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

I agree that this is a real problem, and so endorse this. I don't think that the structure Peter proposed is a possible solution; there are many such groups outside Wikipedia, and most of them spend their time as a group caballing on their elections to maintain the "quality" of the in-group - in our terms, a combination of the less delightful qualities of FA and RfA. (I further expect that the active population would decline steadily: members would lose interest in the project, and non-members face two hurdles in joining; they have to know about the Club, and they have to be chosen.) The job would be better done by a populous Wikiproject, like MilHist or Math; as long as it maintains a sufficient number of interested members, the consensus of the sane will deserve as much trust as the community of Wikipedians does in general. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Voceditenore

A blanket-ban on self-selecting groups is probably ill-advised and may have unintended consequences. However, so is creating a separate tier of exclusive "associations", especially in project (as opposed to user) space. If thoughtfully named and formulated (definitely not easy, but possible), there's no reason why a Project cannot fulfil the same goals that an invitation-only "association" might legitimately have. It can be open to all editors provided they are willing to commit to its goals, principles, and code of conduct A project can also have lists (but not "ranks") of veteran editors amongst their members (arrived at by consensus of the members) as well as lists of expert editors with their area of expertise and qualifications. It would be highly unlikely that people would join a project where they did not share its goals and commitments and refused to sign on to them. The two groups that have "real power" in Wikipedia (Administrators and Arbitration Committee are rightly closen by a process open to all Wikipedians. An "association" which limits its membership via an exclusive process has no power, yet risks losing its most powerful attribute – moral authority. (The Mediation Committee is an anomaly and shouldn't be cited as a precedent for either pro or con. It's part of the formal dispute resolution process, has no powers of sanction and its remit and membership criteria are part of Wikipedia policy.) Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'd rather hoped the association would have moved in this direction, before it's discussion were prematurely curtailed by this RFC. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmwith τ 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, except that I don't think lists of approved editors have worked well; better to get several editors. Even if one of them is an SPA (and SPAs are not going to be happy at a project with a wide scope), she will be outnumbered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a sensible assessment. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse probably in the end the only solution that makes sense.There are so many objections to these 2 exclusive groups formed recently that a project seems to be is the wiser path...Modernist (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rootology

We have Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Two of them are: Wikipedia is free content and Wikipedia has a code of conduct. We routinely WP:BLOCK users who deliberately violate these, and WP:BAN users that habitually violate them.

Our two most important pillars are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We don't block block or ban people that habitually violate WP:NPOV, even though habitually violating that completely undermines our entire project.

If people habitually violating WP:NPOV were subject to sanctions by uninvolved admins, we would eliminate a lot of long-term problems simply since all the loud, abrasive, and endless battles surrounding them would be eliminated over time. Just a single one-sentence tweak to WP:NPOV:

+ Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of WP:NPOV in articles may be subject to editing restrictions.

It wouldn't require a major new set of policies, self-forming groups, or anything silly like that. Would it ultimately require Arbcom to weigh in on content? Maybe, maybe not. Is it needed long-term, to do this? Absolutely.

Users who endorse this summary:

rootology (C)(T) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, in some form. It's too strange that we strictly enforce copyright, and we get upset when users curse and swear at each other, or revert too much, but our "secret sauce," as David G calls it, gets left unattended. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the smartest idea I have ever read. Kudos. --M^ask? 07:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! Unomi (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who repeatedly violates Wikipedia's core policies should eventually have their editing privileges curtailed or even revoked. The mechanism of enforcement is debatable, but now such cases are either handled by the ArbCom, where they are drawn out investigations, or at ANI. Due to the nature of such things, enforcement is probably easiest in the most egregious cases and difficult in milder cases even if they chronic. This matter merits further dicussion in another forum. Will Beback talk 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I've been saying much the same for some time in various fora. I'm not sure what its relevance is to this one, though. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Brothejr (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Rootology & Slim, you've both been involved in enough controversial areas to see why this wouldn't work; all this would do would be to shift the battlefield a couple of feet to the left. "Neutral" is itself a relative term, and formalising the enforcement as an admin task would give way too much power to a small group who often aren't well qualified to judge; you'd be effectively saying "admin POV = NPOV". NPOV is one of the few areas where the whole "wisdom of crowds" thing is a valid argument as it forces a broad consensus to be generated. If we start relying on admins to decide the approved version of reality without room for dissenting opinions, we just end up with endless reruns of the Cold Fusion, Scientology etc debates. – iride scent 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples where we can point to editors habitually abusing sources and wikilaw that it would go some way towards bringing controversial areas a bit more peace and harmony if they were removed from the equation. Unomi (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact nothing more than a recognition and strengthening of tendentious editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the current governance structure would support having admins decide who is violating NPOV and taking action. If there were some sort of Content Committee, that might work. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that would no doubt be a group similar to the one being discussed. I can see negatives to Rootology's idea, but it surely seems preferable to some kind of "Content Committee". J Milburn (talk)

Statement by Brothejr

We have heard various statements above how this group could have been a help to Wikipedia and how there are various problems within the wiki. The statements have ranged from POV problems to not being able to trust other editors due to the fact they cannot be verified.

The group, who caused this RFC to be opened, wanted to create a "trust" system where those editors that could be "trusted" would be part of the group. This newly forming group's leader/founder mentioned this and also how certain editors had more standing then other editors when telling the membership about himself/his objectives: "a lobbying or advocacy group that focuses attention on the frustrations that those actually writing, as opposed to playing whack-a-mole with vandals or new-page patrolling, actually have to put up with day-to-day." [1]

Such a group fundamentally would not have had the over all editor population's interests in mind. If a group was for the entire population, then it would have been inclusive, not exclusive. Any group that is fully inclusive and open to anybody and everybody who wanted to join should be encouraged. Any group that is exclusive and closed to other editors should be discouraged no matter how lofty the goals of the group are.

Also, it should be asked, if such editors wanted to help improve Wikipedia, then why had not not used the village pump, created an RFC like this, or brought it up in some other Wikipedia forum for the community at large to comment? Brothejr (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

The main interests of editors should be the encyclopedia. Enric Naval (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But on the last point, many simply have general issues with the current Rfc/VP/policy change processes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 207.34.229.126

Individuals shall be allowed to organize themselves into any groups they wish to, by any means they wish to use. If an individual by editing Wikipedia violates any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, whether they are acting in their own interests or to further the interests of a group they are a member of, they shall be subjected to warnings, blocks, bans, etc. by their fellow editors as described in those same policies or guidelines. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Seems reasonable to me, in principle. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree, for the reasons given in my own statement below. A remedy proposed for a specific situation might prove dangerous for potentially different ones in the future. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Exactly! Take appropriate measures when necessary, not as a precaution. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shakescene

I think this whole Request for Comment needs to be recast in terms of behavio(u)r rather than structure.

I'm not keen on closed or self-co-opting groups in general, but I don't like an abstract ban on them, either. What if (hypothetically speaking) the inclusionists' or exclusionists' associations, or the Article Rescue Squadron, found themselves deliberately swamped by new opponents whose only purpose was to sabotage their discussions and activities? Shouldn't they be able to take measures to protect themselves, such as imposing membership conditions? What if a group of editors did genuinely feel (rightly or wrongly) that some policy or the execution of some asserted policy was being applied to them in an unfair or vengeful way? (Or that they weren't being sufficiently protected by some other policy from libel or vandalism?) Shouldn't they have a right to organize themselves as perceived common victims of what they see as unjust?

What shouldn't be accepted, however, is some of the potential common activities mentioned in previous statements. For example, packing Talk page, items-for-Deletion or Administrators' Noticeboard discussions with those who weren't previously directly involved (which might crudely called "distributed meat-puppetry"); enforcing any kind of trade-union, factional or Bolshevik discipline; agreeing to vote together ahead of a poll; "trusting other established editors’ expertise" in a field of which you're personally ignorant in preference to the expertise of other editors, etc.

I haven't followed the history of the proposed Association of Established Editors closely enough to give more detail, but that's why I think a completely new discussion, straw poll or Request for Comment about specific questionable behavio(u)r, what would make it open to question, and the best remedy to apply, is more appropriate. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Responded on talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank

What do we mean by "on Wikipedia"? Reading quickly, I didn't see a single reference above to Meetups or real-life groups of any kind, including m:Wikimedia New York City. I ask because I've been thinking of either joining the DC meetups or starting a series of meetups in North Carolina, depending on interest. But all the comments above reinforce something I already knew: any meetup of Wikipedians with intentions over and above eating pizza had better be purer than Caesar's wife, because they're going to have to deal with many of the reservations people have about cabals expressed above.

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by $USER

Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.